I just finished reading a very interesting and entertaining book:
"A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper" by John Allen Paulos.
Each chapter dissects one news story (or a couple of news stories falling in the same category) and it exposes faulty reasoning in it, from wrong interpretation of statistical data to circular logical reasoning to optimistic curve fitting to inappropiate probalistic assumptions etc. Seeing the news stories through the author's eye often leads to conclusions that are very different from the headlines that go with those stories. What surprised me most is how ingrained journalistic conventions with faulty reasoning are and how hard it is to shake yourself free and see through them. This book goes a long way in making you a more skeptical and educated newspaper reader.
In the same vein is this webpage in which philosopher Julian Baggini is collecting faulty reasoning in argumentations.
One other instance of faulty reasoning is worth mentioning here, something Malcolm Gladwell calls "creeping determinism" in an article he wrote for The New Yorker magazine. It describes the faulty reasoning in which events in hindsight seem to have been destined to occur the way they did which invariably raises the question of why haven't the signals that pointed in that way been picked up. Examples in the article are among others the Sep 11 tragedy and the 1973 attack on Israel from the neighboring Arab countries. Why haven't the intelligence agencies "connected the dots" ? The problem is that only in hindsight can the signals that pointed that way be distinguished from the general noise that confronts inteligence agencies nowadays (for example the F.B.I.'s counter terrorism division has sixty-eight thousand outstanding and unassigned leads dating back to 1995).